in one of the strangest (and yet hugely widespread) contradictions i'm aware of, it is the truth that a large percentage of vegans are also cat owners. how does a vegan co-exist and care for an obligate carnivore without imploding into a mess of speciesist contradictions? and, yet, it is an easily observable condition in the actual universe that we exist within, thereby demonstrating once and for all that there are no underlying rational laws of physics underpinning the universe we inhabit.

i'm an ideological vegan. we need protein, but we should grow it using animals that don't have brains. so, i'll break on strict veganism by interjecting some actual real science - it is true that the animals that we enslave for our consumption are too cognizant of their own existences to justify that kind of treatment and that farming as we understand it should be abolished. a caterpillar, on the other hand, does not have a discernible brain, and consequently has no ability to understand it's own struggle. but, this is an empirical observation backed up by repeatable experiments, and not a claimed dictate by an entity that doesn't exist - or a rule determined by a committee that has given itself the task of distributing the earth's resources.

an economy of scale around insect production would actually solve a myriad of problems. it's something that should be actively worked towards.

as an ideological vegan roots their ideas in science rather than religion, a sympathetic attitude towards abolishing factory farms doesn't extend to non-violence towards all animals. we don't need to talk about mosquitoes and malaria; again, mosquitoes don't have brains. let me ask you this question: what makes the life of your neighbourhood feral cat more valuable than the life of the bird that it killed this morning, or even the rat that it killed last week? how can you stand up for the cat's violence while condemning the human's?

"a cat is being a cat" may be true. but, a human is being a human. and, yes: humans are animals, too.

nor is the premise that cats reduce pests thought out well, as the cats themselves are riddled with diseases and leave feces everywhere. humane rat traps are a better idea.

what would you do with a human that came back every day and took a shit in your garden? you'd probably kick the shit out of that human, if you got the chance, right? or, at least institutionalize them. you can't fine a cat. it doesn't give a fuck about your fiat monetary systems. it's just something else to poop on.

we don't need to torture them. but, we need to control them.

there were some people out culling the cats, tonight. this is excellent news.

but, you should have seen the look on the woman's face when i told her i didn't believe in standing up for all god's creatures.

"naw. those cats - they're vermin. they should be culled."

she looked like somebody stabbed her in the throat.

but, it's the truth of it: they're just useless shit producers.

fuck your god. fuck your culture. and, fuck your sanctity of life.

reality check: we are, in fact, on our way to building a majority atheist society, where judeo-christian values are flushed down the drain in favour of a science-driven culture. i welcome this. and, i will happily make enemies out of those that would retard our movement forwards, with the full intent of permanently destroying them.

this is the truth of things, but i don't want to even get there:

Where Board may dismiss

197 (1) The Board may dismiss an application without holding a hearing or refuse to allow an application to be filed if, in the opinion of the Board, the matter is frivolous or vexatious, has not been initiated in good faith or discloses no reasonable cause of action.  2006, c. 17, s. 197 (1).

Same

(2) The Board may dismiss a proceeding without holding a hearing if the Board finds that the applicant filed documents that the applicant knew or ought to have known contained false or misleading information.  2006, c. 17, s. 197 (2).

i want to be clear.

i would not expect the board to process the order. she is trying to evict me over behaviour that is happening off of her property, under the ridiculous claim that it is interfering with her enjoyment of her own property. it fails the test of causality. the board should not even hear this. and, i should be able to counter-sue for malice.

and, this is ignoring the fact that she placed an illegal date on the form, which voids it in the first place.

but, i don't want to go down this path. things can go wrong. i need the content of the order voided, immediately.

so, the property owner has really gone down the rabbit hole. the reality is that the order she served this afternoon is so incoherent that the law doesn't seem to have predicted it; it's so ridiculous, that i can't figure out a proper response

how does a tenant react to a demand by the landlord, when the landlord cannot make that demand? the landlord has demanded that i cease a behaviour within 7 days, or be evicted, but she has no right to make the demand. i could just ignore her - and suspect that the court would even refuse the eviction order - but i don't want to go through an eviction process. what i want is for the order to be voided from the start.

the closest remedy i can find has to do with charging her with criminal harassment. but, this is more of a consequence of stupidity than malice. i mean, it's both - don't get me wrong. but, it's so poorly thought out, that it would be difficult to prosecute; occam's razor is that she's just horribly wrong.

further, it would be difficult for me to make the case that the demand is interfering with my enjoyment of the property - for the reason that the point of contention is happening off of the property. the kind of obvious reaction relies on making the same incoherent legal error that's underlying her demand, in the first place. if this *was* on her property, i could countersue...but i know better....

what i want to do is bring the cease and desist order to a judge that will overrule it and tell her she can't file an order over this - that a judge won't hear it. but, i can't find the right documents. surely, i must have some recourse over an absurd accusation besides going through the process of eviction. can i not bring the cease and desist order, itself, to a judge, and request a stop order or an injunction? that form isn't on the page...

i'll have to call toronto tomorrow.